What is Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali authority for?

The Supreme Court established principles for best judgment assessments, stating that some guesswork is inevitable but the assessment must be bona fide, rational, and free from bias or capriciousness. An appellate authority cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Assessing Officer unless the AO's assessment is shown to be biased, irrational, vindictive, or capricious, especially when the assessee fails to provide proper accounts or counter-evidence.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 132(4), Section 132, Section 133A, Section 139, Section 147.

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271)

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali?

232 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD-I) Cir 7CIT (OSD I) Cir 7, Mumbai

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 5786/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Jay Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Girish Dave, A.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…iod of A.Y.2006-07 i.e. from 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2005. Therefore, estimation of unaccounted sales for the period of even before 1.4.2005 cannot be justified. The Learned DR has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of H,M. Esufali and others (90 ITR 271). On perusal of the said judgment we find that for the accounting period 1.11.59 to 20,10,60 the assessee had disclosed turnover of Rs.3,97,356/- and taxable turnover of Rs, 1,10,2467- for the purpose of sales tax. There was inspection by sales tax authorities on 19.9.63 and a bill book was found for 19 days from 1.9.60 to 19.9,60 showing that sal…

Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD-I) Cir 7CIT (OSD I) Cir 7, Mumbai

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 5785/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Jay Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Girish Dave, A.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…iod of A.Y.2006-07 i.e. from 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2005. Therefore, estimation of unaccounted sales for the period of even before 1.4.2005 cannot be justified. The Learned DR has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of H,M. Esufali and others (90 ITR 271). On perusal of the said judgment we find that for the accounting period 1.11.59 to 20,10,60 the assessee had disclosed turnover of Rs.3,97,356/- and taxable turnover of Rs, 1,10,2467- for the purpose of sales tax. There was inspection by sales tax authorities on 19.9.63 and a bill book was found for 19 days from 1.9.60 to 19.9,60 showing that sal…

Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD I) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 1729/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Jay Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Girish Dave, A.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…iod of A.Y.2006-07 i.e. from 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2005. Therefore, estimation of unaccounted sales for the period of even before 1.4.2005 cannot be justified. The Learned DR has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of H,M. Esufali and others (90 ITR 271). On perusal of the said judgment we find that for the accounting period 1.11.59 to 20,10,60 the assessee had disclosed turnover of Rs.3,97,356/- and taxable turnover of Rs, 1,10,2467- for the purpose of sales tax. There was inspection by sales tax authorities on 19.9.63 and a bill book was found for 19 days from 1.9.60 to 19.9,60 showing that sal…

Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD I) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 1728/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Jay Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Girish Dave, A.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…iod of A.Y.2006-07 i.e. from 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2005. Therefore, estimation of unaccounted sales for the period of even before 1.4.2005 cannot be justified. The Learned DR has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of H,M. Esufali and others (90 ITR 271). On perusal of the said judgment we find that for the accounting period 1.11.59 to 20,10,60 the assessee had disclosed turnover of Rs.3,97,356/- and taxable turnover of Rs, 1,10,2467- for the purpose of sales tax. There was inspection by sales tax authorities on 19.9.63 and a bill book was found for 19 days from 1.9.60 to 19.9,60 showing that sal…

Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD I) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 1727/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Jay Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Girish Dave, A.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…iod of A.Y.2006-07 i.e. from 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2005. Therefore, estimation of unaccounted sales for the period of even before 1.4.2005 cannot be justified. The Learned DR has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of H,M. Esufali and others (90 ITR 271). On perusal of the said judgment we find that for the accounting period 1.11.59 to 20,10,60 the assessee had disclosed turnover of Rs.3,97,356/- and taxable turnover of Rs, 1,10,2467- for the purpose of sales tax. There was inspection by sales tax authorities on 19.9.63 and a bill book was found for 19 days from 1.9.60 to 19.9,60 showing that sal…

Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Ass CIT (OSD I) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 1726/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Jay Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Girish Dave, A.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…iod of A.Y.2006-07 i.e. from 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2005. Therefore, estimation of unaccounted sales for the period of even before 1.4.2005 cannot be justified. The Learned DR has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of H,M. Esufali and others (90 ITR 271). On perusal of the said judgment we find that for the accounting period 1.11.59 to 20,10,60 the assessee had disclosed turnover of Rs.3,97,356/- and taxable turnover of Rs, 1,10,2467- for the purpose of sales tax. There was inspection by sales tax authorities on 19.9.63 and a bill book was found for 19 days from 1.9.60 to 19.9,60 showing that sal…

Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD 1) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 1725/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Jay Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Girish Dave, A.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…iod of A.Y.2006-07 i.e. from 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2005. Therefore, estimation of unaccounted sales for the period of even before 1.4.2005 cannot be justified. The Learned DR has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of H,M. Esufali and others (90 ITR 271). On perusal of the said judgment we find that for the accounting period 1.11.59 to 20,10,60 the assessee had disclosed turnover of Rs.3,97,356/- and taxable turnover of Rs, 1,10,2467- for the purpose of sales tax. There was inspection by sales tax authorities on 19.9.63 and a bill book was found for 19 days from 1.9.60 to 19.9,60 showing that sal…

DCIT Cen Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Phaarmasia Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeal

ITA 446/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 260A

…the Order observed as under; Quote "7. Before concluding we may mention that in ail matters of block assessment, the Department heavily relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali 1973 CTR (SC) 317 : (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC). That was a case in which unreported sales were detected for a period of 19 days in a year. The AO estimated the turnover for the entire period of one year on the basis of the unreported sales for the period of 19 days. The question that arose before the Supreme Court is as to whether the AO was right in doing so. It was held by the apex Cour…

Scientific Devices (Bombay) P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 3, Thane

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are partly allowed and appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 2708/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69C

…80/- x 1.92/100) and Rs 33,76,0257- (7,92,49,413/- /- x 4.26/100), respectively. In this regard, I would like to place my reliance on the ratio laid down by the following courts - // is held by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of H M Esufali H M Abdulla 90 ITR 271 (SC) that if the estimation made by the Assessing Authority is a bonafide estimate and based on a rationable basis, the fact that there is no good proof in support of that estimate is immaterial. Apex court has farther held in the case ofM/s. Kanchwala Gems Pvt. Ltd vs JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) that it is well settled that in a best judgment assessment…

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Scientific Devices (Bombay) P.Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are partly allowed and appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 2697/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69C

…80/- x 1.92/100) and Rs 33,76,0257- (7,92,49,413/- /- x 4.26/100), respectively. In this regard, I would like to place my reliance on the ratio laid down by the following courts - // is held by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of H M Esufali H M Abdulla 90 ITR 271 (SC) that if the estimation made by the Assessing Authority is a bonafide estimate and based on a rationable basis, the fact that there is no good proof in support of that estimate is immaterial. Apex court has farther held in the case ofM/s. Kanchwala Gems Pvt. Ltd vs JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) that it is well settled that in a best judgment assessment…

Professional Group Education & Technical Development Society, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (Hqtrs) (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 847/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

Section 144

…ised in this appeal nor any supporting evidences were produced by him despite adequate opportunity having been provided. In this connection, reliance may be placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble supreme court in the case of H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 wherein the Hon'ble court has held that he appellate authority cannot substitute its own judgment in place of the judgment of the A.O. unless it is shown that the judgment of the A.O. was biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious. In the instant case the appellant has not able to show that the decision of the A.O. was arbitrary, biased, irratio…

M/S Payal Nivesh & Viniyog Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 1576/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2005-06 M/S Payal Nivesh & Dcit, Circle-1(2), बनाम / Viniyog Pvt. Ltd., 7A, Aayakar Bhawan, P/7, V/S. Hospital Street, 1St Floor, Chowringhee Square, Kokata-72 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabcp 5162 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arinidam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 01-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05-01-2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata Dated 31.05.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-1, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 22.05.2007 For Assessment Year 2005-06. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred & Acted Against The Principal Of Natural Justice In Having Passed The Ex Parte Appellate Order Without Affording Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. That, Therefore, As The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is A Nullity For The Failure To Conform To The Principle Of Natural Justice Leading To Unfair Play In Action, The Same Was Arbitrary, Unwarranted. Invalid & Not Sustainable In Law & The Same Is Liable To Be Quashed. 3. That, Without Any Prejudice To The Above, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Having Presumed For Alleged Non- Compliance On Two Dates That The Appellant Did Not Want To Pursue

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…dicating the same on merits and facts of the case already on record and this action of Ld. CIT(A) is not only arbitrary, uncalled for but also bad in law. 4. That, reliance made by the Ld. CIT(A) on the decision in the case of H.M.Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC) is totally misplaced on the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case. inasmuch the impugned order has been passed ex parte qua the assessee without any supporting evidence in support of the case and hence a true and impartial decision about biasness or otherwise of the action of the A.O. was not possible to be taken. 5. That, even on me…

Aditya Birla Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)4, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri

…the best of his judgment, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) cannot interfere with the same. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v/s H.M. Esufali H.M. Yusuf Ali Abdul Ali, [1973] 90 ITR 271 (SC). 50. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, no defect was found in the books of account. He submitted, if there was any discrepancy, it was in the statement submitted before the Assessing Officer, that too, due to bonafide mistake. He submitted, in the tax audit report, there is no mention of percentage of yield. He submitted, as per F…

V & V Pharma Industries, Thane vs. ACIT Cir. 3, Thane

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6056/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak RajeFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…le to be re-estimated by rejecting the accounts. In this regard, I would like to place my reliance I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 on the ratio laid down by the following courts- it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H M Esufali H M Abdulla 90 ITR 271 (SC) that if the estimation made by the Assessing Authority is a bonafide estimate and based on a rationable basis, the fact that there is no good proof in support of that estimate is immaterial. Apex court has further held in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems Pvt. Ltd. vs JCIT 288 ITR 10 (Se) that it is well settled that in a best judgment assessme…

DCIT, Cir-Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S J. K. Engineering (P) Ltd., Sikkim

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1400/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1400/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-Gangtok, Sikkim -Vs- M/S J.K. Engineering (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcj 9413 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 143(3)

…cts of the case in directing the reduce the addition at Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer – (a) Reliance is placed on the ratio of following judgments: (i) CIT vs. S.P. Nayak and Ramesh M (235 ITR 94), and (ii) CIT vs. H.M. Esufali & H.M. Abu Ali [90 ITR 271 (SC)] 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal, if any. 4 J.K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2011-12 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that no supporting evidences were submitted by the assessee with regard to the aforesaid 15 items of expenditure either before the ld AO / ld CITA or even before…

Etesh Prakash Jain (HUF), Bhiwandi vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3021/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ito Wd 1(1), Vs. Etesh P. Jain Huf It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, Plaza, Wayale Nagar 331/5, Surya Darshan Kalyan West, Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan Gokul Nagar Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Etesh P. Jain Huf Vs. Ito Wd 1(1), It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, 331/5, Surya Darshan Plaza, Wayale Nagar Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan West, Gokul Nagar Kalyan Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Arju Garodia Assessee By Shri A.T.Jain

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…P Jain HUF, Bhiwandi address. The assessee could not furnish current mailing addresses nor produce any party for examination. j. Estimation of income - Best Judgement assessment - It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H M Esufali H M Abdulla 90 ITR 271 (SC) that if the estimation made by the Assessing Authority is a bonafide estimate and based on a rationable basis, the fact that there is no good proof in support of that estimate is immaterial. Apex court has further held in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems Pvt. Ltd. vs JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) that it is well settled that in a best judgment assessme…

Subhash Pareta, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 434/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L.Chandel (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 142Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69C

…guess work cannot be eliminated so long as best judgment has a nexus with material on record and discretion in that behalf has not been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. H.M Esufali, H.M. Abdulali reported at 90 ITR 271 (SC) mentioned that- The AO is not duty bound the state precisely the account of suppressed turnover where it is obvious that the assessee is maintaining false accounts. The assessee cannot plead that it is the duty of the AO to prove conclusively the amount of suppressed turnover, as this fact is in his personal knowledge; ….The burden of provi…

Iqbal Ahmed Khalilamed Subedar, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(2), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 4896/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri. S.C. Tiwari & RutejaFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik(CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 40A(3)

…O has not applied the profitability rates to compute income. It is important at this stage to refer to following important judicial pronouncements on the relevant subject: a) Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case CST v. H.M.Esufali H.M.Abdulali reported in (1973) 90 ITR 271(SC) has explained the distinction between regular assessment and best judgment assessment as under: “ …The distinction between a “best judgment” assessment and assessment based on the accounts submitted by an assessee must be borne in mind. Sometimes there may be innocent or trivial mistakes in the accounts maintained by the assessee. There may be…

Iqbal Ahmaed Khalil Ahmed Subedar, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 2135/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri. S.C. Tiwari & RutejaFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik(CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 40A(3)

…O has not applied the profitability rates to compute income. It is important at this stage to refer to following important judicial pronouncements on the relevant subject: a) Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case CST v. H.M.Esufali H.M.Abdulali reported in (1973) 90 ITR 271(SC) has explained the distinction between regular assessment and best judgment assessment as under: “ …The distinction between a “best judgment” assessment and assessment based on the accounts submitted by an assessee must be borne in mind. Sometimes there may be innocent or trivial mistakes in the accounts maintained by the assessee. There may be…

M. R. Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 790/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali

What is Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali

Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD-I) Cir 7CIT (OSD I) Cir 7, Mumbai

Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD-I) Cir 7CIT (OSD I) Cir 7, Mumbai

Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD I) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD I) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD I) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Ass CIT (OSD I) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

Shankarlal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD 1) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

DCIT Cen Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Phaarmasia Ltd, Hyderabad

Scientific Devices (Bombay) P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 3, Thane

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Scientific Devices (Bombay) P.Ltd, Thane

Professional Group Education & Technical Development Society, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (Hqtrs) (Exemption), Jaipur

M/S Payal Nivesh & Viniyog Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Kolkata

Aditya Birla Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)4, Mumbai

V & V Pharma Industries, Thane vs. ACIT Cir. 3, Thane

DCIT, Cir-Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S J. K. Engineering (P) Ltd., Sikkim

Etesh Prakash Jain (HUF), Bhiwandi vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Kalyan

Subhash Pareta, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota

Iqbal Ahmed Khalilamed Subedar, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(2), Navi Mumbai

Iqbal Ahmaed Khalil Ahmed Subedar, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(2), Mumbai

M. R. Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai